Far More Women than Men Voted for Carney. Why? (thetyee.ca)

submitted 2 days ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Canada’s recent federal election suggests a growing gender divide in political preferences.

Polling indicated women voters leaned strongly toward the Liberals, while an increasing number of men — particularly younger men — gravitated toward the Conservatives.

This polarization was not simply a matter of partisan preference but reflected deeper social, cultural and economic realignments rooted in identity politics and diverging values.

The gender gap also mirrors patterns across western democracies, where far-right populist parties increasingly draw male support through nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-feminist narratives, while women — especially racialized and university-educated — opt for progressive parties promoting equality and social protection.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

the predominant message from the left

Meh people keep saying this, but this comes mostly from the right that likes to amplify the most fringe leftist stuff for rage bait. The predominant message from the left is that men need help. Leftist outlets, influencers, thinkers and communicators routinely try to bridge that gap, but the "fuck your feelings" crowd is only interested in hate-watching the tiktoks of a random punk saying that men are shit.

[-] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is absolutely not true. I'm kinda like a "traitor" who doesn't get viewed as a man, so I've been in group texts with my predominantly women friend-group and they feel comfortable enough to speak freely. They absolutely say stuff like "all men are trash" and mean it, some of them like to brag about stuff like pretending to date a guy in order to get him to help them move before ghosting him. They say shit like "you're one of the good ones" without an ounce of self-awareness.

The message from liberals that I see is "Maybe men need help, but it's their fault that they are like this and they'll need to solve it."

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

so I’ve been in group texts with my predominantly women friend-group and they feel comfortable enough to speak freely. They absolutely say stuff like “all men are trash” and mean it

I've got bad news for you: conservative (or whatever other self identifying right-wing) woman also say this. But the good news is that your friend-group is not necessarily representative of "the left".

Men need help, but it’s their fault that they are like this and they’ll need to solve it

It's also true, though. One is said nicely, one is said violently. But despite that, some women still spend an inordinate amount of time trying to bridge that gap. Books and presentations and workshops etc are dedicated to rescuing men. You just can't expect this from every individual, that's unrealistic.

Before any more responses show up to say "ah my leftist wife/friend says men are shit", my wife does that too. My wife has a general dislike against men. That's not news to me, and doesn't change anything regarding what I said above.

[-] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

The reasons women often say stuff like that are numerous tho, ie: men still make more money than women, hold far more CEO/COO positions in companies, have a higher representation in politics, rarely deal with threats of rape, are not trolled incessantly online, rarely face being murdered by someone they know, etc etc etc.

If men don't call out the inequalities and women are vilified for doing so, who's gonna force the much-needed changes we need?

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Absolutely. Not only I think women are overly criticized for growing contemptuous of men, that too is dwarfed in damage caused by manhood. Like any violence-related metric, I think men are the biggest source of misandry anyway. Just like men reserve their love and admiration for men, their highest forms of hatred, envy and scorn are often also men. So it's not like men don't say things equivalent to "men are shit", we do it a lot too - we just try to create a group for which that is the exception (and of course, including ourselves). For example, all this bullshit around "soy boy" and "alfa/beta/sigma". This is just men prejudice against men, in roundabout ways tied to performative masculinity.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You can always tell when someone's in a propaganda bubble by "the predominant message is" .

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

It's not just the right. It's anyone willing to associate systemic and natural (power imbalance) issues with some particular outgroup. Show me someone who doesn't do that and I'll show you someone who's a minority in every demographic they occupy.

Case in point: last I checked, it wasn't the "fuck your feelings" crowd that invented slogans like "eat the rich."

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I did not say "it's just the right" so ...

I don't understand the point for which "eat the rich" is the case, nor what you mean with "natural issues". Yes, systemic issues are generally associated with a particular in-group and a particular out-group, that's how they tend to become systemic - oppression has a source and a target. And?

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute "source demographic" with "individual in that demographic?" Because that's all it takes -- both for bigotry to take root and for it to be perceived by those individuals. In pop culture terms, I have no idea when if ever it stopped. Regarding men specifically, I only witnessed it start half-heartedly/infrequently in the last few years.

Power imbalance is a natural systemic issue in so far as it sometimes having natural sources/root causes, but more importantly it's inherent propensity toward positive feedback loops.

"Eat the rich" is an example of messaging that has completely lost the plot of systemic issues while highlighting the outgroup and not coming only from fringe extremists. Sure, it means "redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all" but it sure doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't have the power and popularity that comes from appealing to the baser, target-hungry instincts of all humans.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sure, it means “redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all” but it sure doesn’t say that.

So what's the issue, again? Just that it sounds scary?

Why is "eat the reach" messaging that "lost the plot" if the slogan does exactly what it's supposed to do (be powerful and popular, appealing to human nature)?

And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute “source demographic” with “individual in that demographic?”

I don't know, you tell me. I don't see rich people getting the short end of a stick because out there a bunch of protestors are holding "eat the rich" plaques. I still don't quite get what's this phrase being used as an example for given it's so inconsequential.

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

Maybe sleep on it and try coming back with fresh eyes. I'm getting exhausted just looking at all the threads to pluck in this comment. And I sincerely mean no disrespect nor judgement, but seeing this conversation through is starting to look like more work than I'm personally willing to invest while I'm supposed to be on vacation.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

lol fair enough, and it's perhaps a not very useful point to dwell anyway, it seems it was just an example

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Also, I don't judge a group by its worst members and least of all its influencers. But pay attention to the actual direct, interpersonal behavior of the influenced majority and then decide whether quietly, non-verbally ostracizing (excluding, avoiding, presuming guilt of) men is a fringe position.

Given the safety/hazard factor, I can't even bring myself to cast blame. It only takes 1% of men victimizing women for 50% of women to eventually get victimized. But that is where fringe behavior is condemning an entire demographic. Every sufficiently large group has its Cro-Magnon influencers, which no reasonable person considers representative of that group.

I appreciate the considerable amount of left-leaning voices that avoid condemning men just for being, and even sometimes recognize the challenges they face and the limits of their agency as individuals. But the majority these voices are not, and I doubt even their audiences comprise the majority of people who align themselves anywhere left of center.

The further left I go, the more hostility I face from increasingly narrow purity tests. When performed in person, its often with a haughty air/attitude of expecting me to fail. (In other words, I'm talking about people who are clearly not afraid of me.) If that isn't stereotyping and prejudice, I don't know what is. And so I align with a set of values and political views populated by people I find no less miserable to be around than the bigots on the right. You can file that under "various reasons" to choose self-isolation.

And I'm certainly not the only person from the left pointing out that the left has a welcoming problem, either.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I see. You are resentful for having your flaws exposed by people who do not concern themselves with making this comfortable for you. That, I can agree, is a common experience for men. It's not the same thing as "the left says that you're evil because you have a Y chromosome", though.

The irony is that this isn't specific to men either. The same journey applies to everyone. Hope you find a group that can help you grow in a safer space, though such things are not a given, unfortunately.

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

You weren't interested in generalities and I don't believe there's anything approaching hard data on this, so I personalized my point. I had my awakening, humbling, and re-habilitation of self-identity before any of this came up (for me), and it only did because I started noticing how increasingly harder it was for other men to to navigate that same path. I'm one of the lucky ones because of the support system I had before I "deserved" one.

Even then, I'd be perfectly happy sticking to my own tiny community, if not for my nation's willingness to join the broader movement nurturing backlash against growing hardship into grievance politics and the same steady slide right as every other major nation.

I miss having my head in the sand.

The only thing I could be credibly accused of resenting is the realization that I have to take more responsibility for the state of society around me, and start doing the work on behalf of people beyond my inner circle. For a long time, I said nothing in defense of men because it was very much not expedient to invite the associated judgements. Besides, there isn't exactly a shortage of (I used to think) higher priority groups to defend. Men still aren't the highest by a mile, but they're doing a good job of escalating it.

But I'll dock no points for jumping to the simple, stereotypical conclusion. It is, after all, a very popular psychoanalysis. ;)

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

I mean, I have no shame in acknowledging that I too had and may still have from time to time some resentment. Maybe I'm projecting? But I do see in your writing the mindspace I recognize personally. It's part of being in a privileged position while also suffering the negative consequences of said privilege. It really is uncomfortable to be told that I'm the problem when, from my point of view, I'm trying to get rid of the problem.

But both are true, so I do think it's easier to get through this by letting go of this peeve. Yeah sure a bunch of women will say they'd rather come across a bear when hiking, some will wear t-shirts saying that all men are garbage, some misandrists will yell that all cis males need to have their dicks chopped off. But if that's what the majority of your experience of "the left" is, there's something wrong with the composition of your social life. "The left" is more than that, and in that regard it's just a fine place to be, even if it's one that will not let me forget that I still have lots of ingrained sexism - I really do, I would not pass infinitely narrow "purity tests" as you say. Same for racism, transphobia, ageism, ableism etc (which is why I said this experience is universal).

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

The trouble with

letting go of this peeve

is that

[men are] doing a good job of escalating it.

In political terms, I'm affected in so far as disaffected men are storming the halls of power and pursuing agendas that will make everything worse for all of us. In interpersonal terms, "I got mine." And in subsequent identity terms, saying and doing nothing feels a bit like pulling up the ladder behind me.

Ok I'm signing off now. Cheers.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago

saying and doing nothing feels a bit like pulling up the ladder behind me

I think I understand where you're coming from, but if you can let go of having the guard up against the very real barrage of criticism you have to face as you dive deeper into deconstructing masculinity, you can still try to provide the safe space you wish you had on your journey. It's not a matter of silencing yourself, it's more like: understanding where that friction is coming from, then learning how to plow through and still develop oneself with the constructive feedback, then being there for others you recognize could use a gentler nudge towards a better path.

Rest nicely and be safe out there.